Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Attack On Sovereignty

Those concerned about "The New World Order" speak as if the United
States is coming under the control of an outside conspiratorial force.
In fact, it is the US that is the New World Order. That is what the
American unipolar world, about which China, Russia, and Iran complain,
is all about.

Washington has demonstrated that it has
no respect for its own laws and Constitution, much less any respect for
international law and the law and sovereignty of other countries. All
that counts is Washington's will as the pursuit of hegemony moves
Washington closer to becoming a world dictator.

The examples are so numerous someone should compile them into a book.
During the Reagan administration the long established bank secrecy laws
of Switzerland had to bend to Washington's will. The Clinton
administration attacked Serbia, murdered civilians and sent Serbia's
president to be tried as a war criminal for defending his country. The
US government engages in widespread spying on Europeans' emails and
telephone calls that is unrelated to terrorism. Julian Assange is
confined to the Ecuadoran embassy in London, because Washington won't
permit the British government to honor his grant of political asylum.
Washington refuses to comply with a writ of habeas corpus from a British
count to turn over Yunus Rahmatullah whose detention a British Court of
Appeals has ruled to be unlawful. Washington imposes sanctions on other
countries and enforces them by cutting sovereign nations that do not
comply out of the international payments system.

Last week the Obama regime warned the British government that it was a
violation of US interests for the UK to pull out of the European Union
or reduce its ties to the EU in any way.

In other words, the sovereignty of Great Britain is not a choice to
be made by the British government or people. The decision is made by
Washington in keeping with Washington's interest.

The British are so accustomed to being Washington's colony that
deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and a group of UK business executives
quickly lined up with Washington.

This leaves Great Britain in a quandary. The British economy, once a
manufacturing powerhouse, has been reduced to the City of London,
Britain's equivalent to Wall Street. London, like New York, is a world
financial center of which there are none in Europe. Without its
financial status, there wouldn't be much left of the UK.

It is because of the City's financial importance that the UK, alone
of the EU member states, kept the British pound as its currency and did
not join the euro. Because the UK has its own currency and central bank,
the UK was spared the sovereign debt crisis that has plagued other EU
member states. The Bank of England, like the Federal Reserve in the US,
was able to bail out its own banks, whereas other EU states sharing a
common currency could not create money, and the European Central Bank is
prohibited by its charter (at Germany's insistence) from bailing out
member states.

The quandary for the UK is that the solution to the sovereign debt
crisis toward which the EU is moving is to strip the member governments
of their fiscal sovereignty. For the individual countries, the spending,
taxing and, thereby, deficit or surplus positions of the member
countries' budgets will be set by EU central authority. This would mean
the end of national sovereignty for European countries.

For Britain to remain an EU member while retaining its own currency
and central bank would mean special status for Great Britain. The UK
would be the only member of the EU that remained a sovereign country.
What are the chances that the UK will be permitted such exceptional
status? Is this acceptable to Germany and France?

If the British are to fold themselves into Europe, they will have to
give up their currency, central bank, their law, and their economic
status as a world financial center and accept governance by the EU
bureaucracy. The British will have to give up being somebody and become
nobody.

It would, however, free the UK from being Washington's puppet unless the EU itself is Washington's puppet.
According to reports, sometime this year Scotland, a constituent part
of the UK, is to vote on leaving the UK and becoming an independent
country. How ironic that as the UK debates its dismemberment, the
country itself faces being merged into a multi-national state.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and
Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous
university appointments and is Contributing Editor to Gerald Celente's
Trends Journal. His columns are at (more...)
* * * *
* * * *

Steven G. Erickson's opinion: If Obama uses Executive Signing Orders to do anything that is against the US Constitution he should be arrested and prosecuted. I believe the Connecticut State Police brass have conspired against the American People.

Sandy Hook, A Police Informant, real shooter?

Text with video:

The name Chris Rodia, an alleged Norwalk or Stamford Connecticut Police
Informant? Were there actors hired to hold the story together? Was
Rodia's car the one that Adam Lanza allegedly used? Was Chris Rodia at
the Sandy Hook Newtown Connecticut Schoolyard shooting? If so, what was
his role. An hour and a half video asks those questions. [the video]

Are police informants involved in beating up police officers who break ranks and for killing civilians? [post]

Is this how judges are corrupted? [post] This is how you "get made" in the Connecticut State Police Mafia. [post] My letter to Connecticut Governor Malloy [post]

I, Steven G. Erickson, was blocked from posting and commenting on
Opednews.com, allegedly for questioning the Connecticut State Police
version of the Sandy Hook story. Should anyone, anywhere in the world be
arrested for questioning the Connecticut State Police Story? Spokesman
Paul Vance seems to threaten just that. Should you be blocked from the
internet for being Pro-2nd Amendment or US Constitution?

Notwithstanding
the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The
fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.